From owner-freebsd-net Tue May 12 11:35:49 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA27802 for freebsd-net-outgoing; Tue, 12 May 1998 11:35:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA27164; Tue, 12 May 1998 11:33:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA02994; Tue, 12 May 1998 11:31:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) To: Guido van Rooij cc: peter@netplex.com.au (Peter Wemm), pete@sms.fi, dag-erli@ifi.uio.no, net@FreeBSD.ORG, core@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: INRIA IPv6 on FreeBSD In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 12 May 1998 20:02:27 +0200." <199805121802.UAA18013@gvr.gvr.org> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 11:31:42 -0700 Message-ID: <2990.894997902@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > From what I've heart, the INRIA stack is indeed a good one so I would > opt for the INRIA one (I do not have personal experience with it though). And that's the real essence of the problem here... Most of the people who've even bothered to formulate an opinion on this issue so far have also yet to actually seriously _look_ at any of the available implementations. :-( I appreciate that people's time is limited, especially for bleeding-edge issues like IPv6, but perhaps a working group could be formed at this point to go actually study the various options far more substantially before we move on to the stage of talking seriously about committing anything? - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message